United States v. Henry Timbrook

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Henry Timbrook

448 F.2d 1314, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7782

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 1, 1971

Docket71-1367_1

StatusPublished

This text of 448 F.2d 1314 (United States v. Henry Timbrook) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Henry Timbrook, 448 F.2d 1314, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7782 (5th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Henry Timbrook appeals from judgment of guilty and sentence to five eon- *1315 current terms of confinement for three years each, following jury verdicts of guilty under a 5-count indictment charging violations of Title 18, U.S.C., Sections 659, 2314 and 2315. The appeal challenges (1) the correctness of the trial court’s denial of motions for acquittal as to each count made at the close of the prosecution’s case and renewed at the close of the appellant’s case, and (2) the court’s jury instructions as to permissible inferences arising from proof of possession of recently stolen property. The appellant also asserts that the jury’s verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence before the trial court and jury.

After a careful review of the record, we fail to find error demonstrated in either particular asserted. The proof amply supported the verdict and the jury charge was unexceptionable.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See Glasser v. United States, 1944, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Henry Timbrook appeals from judgment of guilty and sentence to five eon- *1315 current terms of confinement for three years each, following jury verdicts of guilty under a 5-count indictment charging violations of Title 18, U.S.C., Sections 659, 2314 and 2315. The appeal challenges (1) the correctness of the trial court’s denial of motions for acquittal as to each count made at the close of the prosecution’s case and renewed at the close of the appellant’s case, and (2) the court’s jury instructions as to permissible inferences arising from proof of possession of recently stolen property. The appellant also asserts that the jury’s verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence before the trial court and jury.

After a careful review of the record, we fail to find error demonstrated in either particular asserted. The proof amply supported the verdict and the jury charge was unexceptionable.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See Glasser v. United States, 1944, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

448 F.2d 1314, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-henry-timbrook-ca5-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack